Disciplinary actions must balance punitive measures with proportionality, especially when considering the employee’s history and the context of alleged misconduct.

JUDGMENT

Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J. Both, the employee Manoj Kumar Baranwal and the employer Ministry of Defence, Government of India, are aggrieved from the order dated 30th January, 2020 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi in O.A. No.4630/2018 preferred by the employee.

2. W.P.(C) No.5565/2020 preferred by the employer came up first for hearing on 24th August, 2020, when notice thereof was ordered to be issued. W.P.(C) No.7699/2020 preferred by the employee came up first before this Court, only on 8th October, 2020 and thereafter on 14th October, 2020, when notice thereof also was ordered to be issued.

3. The Disciplinary Authority (DA) of the employer, vide order dated 10th May, 2018, imposed punishment of dismissal from service on the employee and which punishment was confirmed in the departmental appeal and in the departmental revision petition preferred by the employee. Aggrieved therefrom, the employee preferred O.A. No.4630/2018 aforesaid. Vide the order impugned by both employer as well as employee, CAT has modified the order of dismissal from service, to one of "reduction in rank to a lower stage, i.e. to the post of Assistant, to be in force for a period of two years, from the date of order of punishment" and has further held the employee to be not entitled to any increment during the period of punishment and directed reinstatement of the employee.

4. We have heard the counsels.

5. CAT, in the impugned order has recorded, that (i) the employee joined the service of the Armed Forces, Headquarter (Civil Services) as an Assistant; (ii) by the year 2017, he was holding the post of Section Officer; (iii) he was issued a Charge Memorandum dated 12th September, 2017, alleging that he, on 1st March, 2017, sent an objectionable video and message to one of the women employees of the Organisation; (iv) the employee submitted an explanation, mostly in the form of tendering apology and seeking pardon; (v) not satisfied with the explanation, the DA appointed the Inquiry Officer (IO); (vi) the IO, in the report dated 5th March, 2018 held the articles of charge framed against the employee as `proved'; (vii) the DA, vide order dated 10th May, 2018 imposed punishment of dismissal from service on the employee and which punishment was confirmed on 29th May, 2018 in departmental appeal and on 13th February, 2019 in the departmental revision; (viii) it was the case of the employee that he got the subject video as well as the message on his mobile phone from some other person and though he made an attempt to delete the same, it did not materialise; the mobile phone was handled by his minor daughter and inadvertently the video and the message was passed on to as many as eleven persons, including to the woman employee of the organisation; on next day i.e. 2nd March, 2017 itself, when the issue was brought to his notice, he tendered unconditional apology but despite that disciplinary proceedings were initiated; the punishment of dismissal from service, for an inadvertent mistake was highly disproportionate and would deprive him and his family of survival and livelihood; and, (ix) on the contrary it was the case of the employer, that the allegation against the employee was serious in nature and stood proved on the basis of oral and documentary evidence and the employee also was not disputing the act of misconduct.

6. CAT, as aforesaid, has reduced the punishment from that of dismissal from service to that of reduction in rank, reasoning that (i) the employee, by the year 2017, had completed 19 years of service; (ii) the subject m